Geopolitics with Ryan Dawson- Episode 7

Ryan Dawson Presents Mike Rivero

Mike Rivero joins us today to talk about mass shootings, guns, SSRIs, and Big Pharma, and try to explore the root of the social problems which predicate such horrible atrocities of mass the shootings of strangers.

This site depends….

Comments

I think it is a mistake to give a vulgar bigmouth as Mike Rivero place to swing around at Boiling Frogs. You are ruining your reputation in this way.
Please beware!! And mr Ryan Dawson did not confront him at all. Not one single hard question. That is bad journalism and bad science. That kind of journalism can we find ar FOX but this will shame Boilng Frogs. Beware.

I’m no fan of GMO’s or big pharma, but Rivero’s approach to climate change is way off the mark. He’s written an extensive article on the subject on his home page, and from what I saw, a good portion is devoted to “past lies,” ie historical examples of elites fooling the populace, and then somehow by extension, elites are therefore lying to us today about climate change. You know you’re about to read something lacking any credibility when the author is trying to bolster their authority on the observed effects (or lack of effects) of humans on the climate when they start talking about the Hittites or Constantine. His points about water vapor being a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, or plants benefiting from extra carbon dioxide, or issues others have raised, for example, about the sun being a primary driver of climate, have all been addressed by qualified scientists, if one cares to take the time to look.

His oft referred to quote about a 1970’s prediction of a coming ice age represents another logical fallacy: scientists have been wrong about climate change predictions in the past, therefore they are wrong, or cannot make reasonably accurate predictions today. The problem of course is that as more data is collected, and the means of observing the planet are refined and improved over time, we can expect to have a better understanding of how processes work.

Another logical fallacy: Al Gore, or others, will profit off of a response to climate change, therefore human caused climate change
is a scam. Hopefully people can see how this doesn’t hold up either. There probably are plenty of corrupt people trying to make a buck off of climate change, and cap and trade is IMO a very likely a candidate for corruption, but of course it should be obvious to anyone with reasoning abilities to understand that the science is a different matter altogether.

This is all pretty basic stuff that should indicate that Mike Rivero is not someone to take seriously in the area of climate change. I could address the other issues he brings up, but hopefully that isn’t necessary at this point. I’m sure he is only trying to help humanity, but the problem is that people hear the kind of confident statements he makes, and are misled by disinfo.

Actually I really like it to disagree with intelligent and informed people: it sharpens my mind. So I am happy to disagree with Bo and Luke on this, although I was referring to Mike Rivero as the intelligent and informed one.

At least Mike Rivero did not call other people vulgar bigmouths. And as a physicist myself I can understand climate models and because of that I am utterly confused about the issue. Luke is clearly not confused: good for him. I hope it is not because of a lack of relevant knowledge or worse a need to parrot authorities (those he calls “qualified scientists”).

Good journalism increases your scope of ideas and possible interpretations of the world. Propaganda does the opposite: it forces one into narrow mindsets (that typically are good for whomever paid for it and bad for the listener). If the two of you prefer propaganda, do not listen to Boiling Frogs.

Dear listeners to Boiling Frogs. I am deeply worried when it concerns our small and delicate planets future. I have been working with these matters several decades. During my years 1976-1983 in latin and Centralamerica I worked as representatve for Swedish Save The Children where I had to meet the terrible results of US imperialism in the region. I noticed then obvious changes in the patterns of climatic disturbances. I am now 74 years old and have studied these matters seriously. My wife who died a few years ago was the CEO of Greenpeace Sweden. I am now convinced that the hegemonic superexplotation the “developed world” under US leadership is brutally realizing (“the war on terror” against Al-CIAda et al) can cause a planetery collaps. Please check the information on the following links. Sincerely yours Bo Modén Gothenburg Sweden.

@Bo: My condolences on the death of your wife. I met some GP folks in the Black HIlls once and they were great. I think they were going to climb Mt. Rushmore the next day.

This presenter, in the video you referenced, talks about the banks=civilization and “Human population overshoot” and seems also to be marketing the 2012 doomsday scenario. Fortunately, he has a book on how to deal with it.

Having a theoretical geophysicist relative (and somewhat apolitical) who has published at the Academy of Sciences about the trouble with the measurements re: climate change (I will try to get a reference to that – I’ve never read it (not a scientist myself)), I would side with those who say that it’s a complicated issue. Personally, I think human pollution is bad whether or not it is causing climate change, because it affects our quality of air and life. And, we should not ignore the monetary and power motivations of policy makers, when it comes to any issue.

No serious individual with a basic sense of logical argumentation, physics degree or not, would support Rivero’s method for “discrediting” climate change, even if they don’t believe it is ultimately real. That much should be obvious. The suggestion to not listen to Boiling Frogs if I’m looking for propaganda made me laugh. Interestingly enough, I can actually handle the “complexity” of critiquing a guest on a show that I regularly listen to and enjoy, and still come back for more. The sentiment you put forth (alongside the biting sarcasm) reminds me of the common response to critics of US policy: “if you don’t like it here, move to North Korea.” Seeing as I’m not looking to have my “propagandized” mind “narrowed” any further, it’s not a response I have much regard for.